About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 3
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBCW 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
MSNBC 1
WETA 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
less agree with the democratic controlled senate in harry reid. politically, finding the consensus to do it, there is an acceptance around the capital that if an agreement is going to be reached, it will have to be like the fiscal cliff deal was, like the transportation bill was. speaker boehner has to pass it with a lot of democratic votes. that is a politically risky thing to do. in the crisis will lead him to do it. getting a majority of republicans to vote for a deal that can also be agreed to with 60 votes in the senate, there is no way to do it right now. host: todd zwillich is a reporter on capitol hill. lesley clark spends much of her time at the white house for mcclatchy newspapers. we will focus on sequestration and we will break it down topic by topic. later in the week, we will look housing and education issues. we hope you tune in all week as we provide more specific details on what will happen and how it could potentially impact you. let me go back to bob woodward. it is one of the opinion pages driving the day. he says the president and jack lew have this wrong. thes
to the democratic leader and harry reid and said this is the solution. >> sean: there you have it the plan that the president is calling not smart, not fair, was actually his solution to quote, saving the economy. again, that's not what we heard today at the white house, what we heard was our commander campaigner in chief reverting back into election mode and bla and using pathetic scare tactics to smear the opposition. sound familiar? you've heard the fear mongering, what i'm about to play is only described as obama's mayen apocalypse, have you questioning whether or not the sun will rise next friday if in fact the sequester takes hold. here is more of the fear mongering and we hanitized this comment a little bit. >> now, congress allows this meat cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness. >> what kind of training, son. >> training sir. >> it will eviscerate job training investments and training. >> i'm registered for this class. >> what class. >> this is u.s. history right there. >> emergency responders, their ability to help responders to prevent disaster
democrats on this issue, harry reid, senator lahey, talking pretty dismissively about the assault weapons ban. gwen: to weapon ban of any kind. >> right. although the magazine restrictions, they still appear to be on the table. the background check measure is astro nomically popular with the government, something like 90% of the people supported it including n.r.a. members. it seems to be a bit of a clever tactic to give some moderate politicians a way to try angulate on this issue so they can say i'm not for the assault weapons ban. that's extreme but i do support this lesser measure even though the irony that something like expanding background checks has the potential to affect a much broader potential policy impact in terms of the number of gun crimes. >> you said a number of n.r.a. members are in favor of the background checks. we haven't heard the n.r.a. say they're in favor of it. are they backing off on the background check issue? >> at least in public, they have not backed off at all. this is a bit of a flip flop for them. back in 1999 the last time this issue was debated, the n.
, and the reason why it was 58 votes is because harry reid switched his vote to no soap the senate can bring it back up again. you have a lot of republican senators who were saying last week that they did not want to see it go up in filibuster. at least it would be an up-down of the to be approved. there was no precedent to filibuster a choice like this. and the republicans decided they wanted to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the terrorist attack in benghazi in september, and so they are committed to passing a goal when they come back. the way you are looking at it, it is a tedious exercise in delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed. he will just have to wait 11 days. you should confirm him because you are going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. host: harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do
or whatever. they laid this on harry reid and that's how it all got started. he is -- so i says obama is lying basically is what he is saying, you know. he is dead wrong. the sequester did not start with jack lew. it are started back in 1985 with graham-rudman. >> that's when they first had the sequester for that round of budget cuts. so it's an idea that's been around. yes, as jay carney has pointed out, if there was a meeting with the white house, would the republicans remember who were holding up refuses to do anything about raising the debt ceiling because they said we have to have a lodge-term deficit reduction plan: the president said we will appoint this committee. >> i am having bad flashbacks >> bill: we were this and they said how do we know the super committee is going to do its job and jack lew said i remember something that they did 25 years ago or whatever called a sequester. the republicans said we like that idea. we will hold this giant rock above people's heads that will fall on their heads if they don't do hair job. the republicans e
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
haven't seen a solution from the president or harry reid. the republicans have put our plan on the table and passed it through the house of representatives. now it is incumbent upon the president to show leadership. >> let's turn to hagel. the nomination of course something taken up once the break is over. this is bob woodward on fox news talking about democratic senators calling the white house asking if hagel was going to withdraw. this is what he said was the white house response. >> the answer is an emphatic no. remember john urlicman used to talk about twisting slowly in the wind. >> why wouldn't the white house jump to hagel's defense? >> i think they have. had john mccain out this weekend. the expectation is that senator hagel is going to -- that vote is going to happen and he will be our next secretary of defense. what i think is deplorable and john mccain was very honest this weekend and part of what prompted some of democrat's questions. republicans made it clear this is a grudge match. lindsey graham is saying he is not going to vote on this or won't move on this until he find
should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off their ass and does something. >> harry reid had a retort. >> i was raised in a little town that had 13 brothels in it so i'm used to salty language. i think he should understand who is sitting on their posterior. we're doing our best to pass something. the speaker is doing nothing to try to pass anything over there. >> that was a good -- >> stephanie: i'm sorry you had to hear me say posterior. >> that was rude. >> his mom did laundry in the brothels in search like nevada. i did not know. >> stephanie: i'm not the one -- >> that's a big -- >> stephanie: now look what you've made me do. >> make quite a mess. >> not that i would know. >> stephanie: if it is a small one, can do you it by hand. [ ♪ circus ♪ ] >> there is a line that you have to go up to. >> stephanie: me, over the line. at least i didn't say scrub your nub. that was yesterday's story. story about a guy -- all right never mind. >> standards and practices sent us a letter about that by the way. >> oh, dear. >> we're disappointed. >> stephanie: knocked me rig
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)